Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?

[Stephen Shaw <xstephenx@apple2.org.za>]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:50:31 -0500, Roy Miller wrote:

> william strutts wrote:
>
>> "Timothy A. Seufert" <tas@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:tas-16D91B.21514716072001@news...
>> <snip>
>> > I believe you are 100% wrong in stating that Apple II programs never
>> > exceeded the "size of memory space" (I assume you mean 64K).  Unless I'm
>> > grossly mistaken, AppleWorks did just that.  It was and is quite
>> > possible to design programs which bank switch code and/or data in and
>> > out of the CPU's address space.  With care, it need not even be a pain
>> > in the butt.
>>
>> I did say that they would have to be bank switched.  It would still
>> need an address range to move the data to like that extra 64K on
>> the 80 column IIe card does.  It is bank switched. What I meant
>> in saying they didn't exceed the size of memory was that only
>> 64K could be accessed at one time.
>
> Sometimes one's thoughts and what one types aren't always the same. Perhaps
> that is why your last sentence is nonsense. Many programs for 64K 8 bit
> computers were larger than 64K. Some 8 bit machines used bank switching,
> some used overlays, and some used both (WordPerfect for the 128K ProDOS
> Apple //e or //c would run MUCH faster if one added extra memory and
> formatted it as a disk drive, copied the files to the RAM disk and launched
> the program from the RAM disk. Neither ProDOS nor WordPerfect did any
> "bankswitching", only the loading of overlays from a disk.
>
>> To get more memory requires
>> the programmer to bank switch the program or to swap code
>> out and pull it from the Floppy/HD in his code.  No hardware
>> or OS automatically handled that on the Apple II.
>
> But then, the machine that you protest would cost too much would easily do
> that. As I recall the 128K Mac used "virtual memory". Was that the ability
> of the 68000, or the OS, or both? And why couldn't it be done on this
> machine inexpensively?
>
>> The early
>> PC's like the 286
>
> The early PCs, of course, used 8088 and 8086 chips.
> The second generation, "Advanced Technology" machines used their 286 and
> later 386 CPUs as fast 8088/86s.

snip

"Advanced Technology"!! From Intel! That is a blatant falsehood :-)))

<further vasecotomising>


-- 
Computer funeral service : Ascii to Ascii, Dos to Dos